Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1887-04-29
REVISING Thu TAX BILL.
PROMPT RESPONSE TO A PETIT
TON OF THE MERCHANTS
ABOUT THEIR TAX.

| PROMPT RESPONSE TO A PE1I-
TON OF THE MERCHANTS
ABOUT THEIR TAX.
THE OLD MERCHANTS TAX RESTORED
THE INCOME TAX REsTORED-T E
NEW WATER TAX PLAN REPEALED.
&C., &C.. &C.
The ordinance increasing the specific
| license tax on merchants, and abolishing
the income tax which it was thought by
the Finance Committee would about off
set each other, did not so appear to those
affected by it, and after examining its
practical effect the following petition
was addressed to the Council on Friday
last:
To the Honorable City Council:
GENTLEMEN We believe the tax ordinance
recently adopted byiyour body, SO far as it re-
lates to merchants, will operate very unjustly
to them. We would respectfully ask that
you call meeting of the Council, not later
ter than Tuesday, The 26th inst, and allow us
to appear before you and show the injustice
and inequality of said ordinance.
Jas. FL. Blackley, Baker Bros, P, b.
Sublett & Son, John W. Todd, M.
E. Miller, j. E.. Fauver & Co.,
Eakle & Jones, Burke q Lewis F.
Alexander & Co., E. Alexander q
| Co., Stack, Splitter q Co., Maslin &
Booker Hardware Co., Treiber &
Coyner, Weller & Elder, NJ. P.
Funkhouser, Loeb Brcs., w. FL.
Weller, [. Witt & Bro.
! A meeting of the City Council was Or
dered for Saturday night at which all the
members were present except Maj. Nc
Mahon. Mr.. M. E. Miller on behalf of
J the signers presented the following pre-
| amble and resolutions:
| WHEREAS, The City of Staunton is largely
! dependent for its prosperity on the prosperity
| of its merchants, inasmuch as the business of
J said City is chiefly mercantile; and whereas,
, the new ordinance recently passed by the City
Council prescribing City taxes is calculated to
seriously damage the mercantile interests of
| Staunton by imposing a burden of taxation
| upon the merchants which in the condition of
trade they cannot bear; And whereas, the
existing State and City system of taxing the
| purchases of merchants instead of their stock
or capital has, since its inception, imposed an
| uns quail and onerous burden of taxes upon
that class of our citizens And whereas, the
recent ''Drummers Decision" by the Supreme
| Court of the United States has made said
! burden of State and City taxes under the ex-
listing system SO much more onerous and un-
equal, even than formerly, upon merchants in
| Virginia, that the Executive of the State has
| already wisely recommended to the General
Assembly speedy legislation on this subject in
order to relieve said class of citizens; And
| whereas, it is more than probable that the
General Assembly viii enact such legislation
atan early date-the intention of that body
| in that behalf bring already indicated
by the introduction of bill looking to that end
| during the last days of the session before
| It's temporary adjournment : though the press
| of other business prevented action thereon at
| the time; And Whereas the system OF taxation
| of the City must be based upon that of the
| State, Therefore
| ResoBoed That the City Council be request
| ed to repeal the recently adopted tax ordi-
| nance for 1878, and that the general tax
| ordinance of 1886 be left in force until the
General Assembly OF the State which is to re-
/ convene on the 9th inst, sh Ill enact-as it
may do, at an early date, under existing con-
ditions -a new law governing merchants Ii
| censes for the State, when the tax legislation
of the City may be adjusted and made to con-
form to that of the State.
2. That the City Council be further re-
quested to postpone the collection of the City
taxes until the General Assembly shall indi-
cate whether or not they will act in the mat
ter of merchants license.
Mr. Tams, Chairman of the Finance
Committee, moved the reconsideration of
and it being carried and the ordinance
once more open for discussion, went on 70
say thatthe specific license clause had
been decided on by the committee on the
idea that the income tax being taken off
the tax would not be increased, but they
now found they were mistaken. He
thought now that it would have been best
if the committee had while making
up the tax bill had some of the merchants
before them for consultation. He
thought from what he had heard that the
old tax bill was about as heavy as the
merchants could stand, and now moved
that it be restored to the ordinance in place
of the new clause.
The motion was carried and the old or
dinance of 1886 adopted and restored to
the ordinance. 1t reads as follows:
Sec. -. On every such license to mer-
chant or mercantile firm (and therein shall be
included dealers in coal, furniture, lumber,
and meat) the tax to be paid shall be gradu-
ated as follows If the amount of purchase
shall not exceed ST. 900, the tax shall be Sc rs;
and for all purchases over 81 900 and less than
So, 600, the tax shall be $780, and all pur
chases over So 900 and less than 5000
tax of five-eights of one per cent; upon all
purchases over 800 600 and less than $50, 900,
there shall be paid tax of fifty cents on the
800 in excess of 800, 600; upon all purchases
over $50, 90 and less than $40,0 900, there shall
| be paid tax of thirty cents on the 800 in
| excess of 500, 900; upon all purchases over
| $40, 900 and less than $4,000, there shall be
| paid a tax of twenty cents on the 500 in ex-
cess of $40,000 upon all purchases over
| $50, 900 there shall be paid tax of ten cents
| on the 800 in excess of $50, 600.
| Mr.. Craig said that with this change She
| city should go on collecting the tax, and if
any change was made by the legislature
| the money could be refunded to the mer-
| chants.
Mr.. Tams said that would make smooth
sailing for the city. for, otherwise, the city
! would have to borrow some Sc 900 to pay
interest, &c., for which the collection of
license was depended on.
Mr.. John W. Todd of the merchants
committee, said the idea of the merchants
was that in view of the probability that
the legislature would make the change
very soon, the Council could pat off the
collection two or three weeks and make
temporary loan for its necessities as had
often been the case before.
I This view did not fnd any advocates
among the couneilmen.
| ANOTHER CHANGE.
J Mr. Tams said he had heard complaints
of the change in the commission merchants
clause increasing the tax from $62 to 500
and abolishing the tax on commissions.